![]() Interesting times."įacebook says that 12 minutes after the 17-minute livestream ended, a user reported the video to Facebook. "It's kind of strange really, we've been blocked by governments before but not telecoms deciding themselves. "It would appear we're either being blocked because a copy was temporarily available via sharing for a very short period, or by reputation," Hewitt said. Optus and Vodaphone are also blocking LiveLeak, he said. The block itself came as a complete surprise, said Hewitt, who noted his site is still shut out of New Zealand and Australia. "We don't want it on our platform and we will continue to remove it whenever it is discovered," a company statement reads. Liveleak co-founder Hayden Hewitt told NPR that Liveleak will not carry the video. "We understand this may inconvenience some legitimate users of these sites, but these are extreme circumstances and we feel this is the right thing to do." "We've started temporarily blocking a number of sites that are hosting footage of Friday's terrorist attack in Christchurch," Telstra said on Twitter. “Those are very challenging issues for enforcement agencies – and I don’t think that’s just New Zealand.New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says she has been in contact with Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg to ensure the video is entirely scrubbed from the platform.Īnd some websites accused of hosting footage of the attacks, such as 4chan and LiveLeak, have found themselves blocked by the country's major Internet providers. I don’t have any power to classify a lot of ,” he said. A lot of the recent attacks are based on that concept of “great replacement” theory and the disinformation that is built around that. “The other challenge is the underlying reasoning and rationale that this form of hate crime is based on. It normalises as something that is … inevitable”.Īblett-Hampson told the Guardian that while the censor’s office had banned the alleged shooter’s specific manifesto, there was a variety of material surrounding it that did not reach New Zealand’s legal thresholds for a ban. “It doesn’t glorify it, but it doesn’t also push back on it. But he had concerns that its propagation meant it could spread to audiences who were receptive to radicalisation. ![]() Many of the groups sharing the Buffalo material online were not directly glorifying it, Hattotuwa said – some believe it was a “false flag” or “distraction” set up by elites to divert attention. “The anti-vax landscape ones who are front and centre, distributing, propagating and amplifying this content – that’s an entirely new phenomena that wasn’t there in March 2019,” he said. Within those groups, the Buffalo material was already spreading, he said, with several accounts that appeared to be expressly set up to disseminate the video and so-called manifesto. Anti-vaccine factions had intermingled with far right and Q-Anon groups, and developed new, conspiratorial and extreme communities, typically hosted on Telegram. While it’s impossible to track the true number if people who have viewed the material on platforms such as Telegram, Hattotuwa said that New Zealand’s fringe and misinformation-spreading ecosystems had grown dramatically since the Christchurch attacks in 2019. ![]() Within New Zealand, researchers are concerned about the spread of copies of the alleged Buffalo terrorist’s propaganda, and say the country has developed fertile ground for extreme material among the pandemic era’s conspiratorial and anti-authoritarian movements.ĭr Sanjana Hattotuwa, who studies disinformation and fringe online communities for Te Punaha Matatini research centre, said the researchers had observed the Buffalo live stream video and propaganda material spreading extensively within New Zealand groups they monitored. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |